Two siblings forced the sale of our inherited beach house and I can't get over it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My inlaws have a beach house in the Rehoboth, OC area. My husband and I have already agreed, when the time comes, we are not going to split it with our BIL and his wife as we travel to too many other places. The taxes alone aren't worth it for the 2 times a year we go.

Is this fabricated? Because you’re trying to come across as smug and well traveled but you’re bragging about putting something very stupid on record with your in-laws. Congrats on a permitting your in-laws to give your BIL and wife 100% of the beach house instead of 50% — which won’t impact the rest of the estate, of course.

I think they mean they won't buy it together with them when the ILs decide to sell. At least that's how I read it. Not taking half in an estate would be dumb.

The owners are going to sign 100% ownership of that beach house over to the son who uses it because the smug “well traveled” daughter in law ran her mouth. She thought she sounded so smart and sophisticated but she actually played herself and her husband out of a very valuable share of property.

Yes, the parents undoubtedly are monitoring DCUM for anonymous posts in order to determine how to divide their assets.

Tell me, is this sort of stupidity catching, or were you born with it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Had the siblings decided to keep the house, OP would be here complaining about how difficult the brother and sister are. The narrative would be that she pays the lion's share of the bills, yet they get the best summer weeks and always leave a mess and break stuff. You just know that would be the case.

This same cynical strain of anti-vacation home post is peppered all over DC Urban Mom, especially the family and real estate forums. Seems like the same persons parrot the same script, no matter if it’s co-owned by a family or not. I suspect it is lower means malcontents and investor class trying to make vacation home ownership sound terrifying. Both love highlighting how great it is to have zero responsibilities or drama. And taxes and repairs you can write off are a spun as a monumental burden. Owning nothing and pissing away family wealth on rent and hotels is so blissful. No actually, past a certain age it’s embarrassing and nobody is impressed by your faux coy brag photo drops on Facebook of your stay in another nice place you don’t own. And no, nobody thinks a serial renter has a big pot of money in bank. Because you don’t — or you’d own a vacation home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't ask for sibling advice here. DCUM is terrible with siblings conflicts.

I must have missed the part where OP was asking for advice on how to repair relations with her siblings. I only read the part where she is still pissed that they wouldn't bankroll her fantasies of owning a joint beach house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had the siblings decided to keep the house, OP would be here complaining about how difficult the brother and sister are. The narrative would be that she pays the lion's share of the bills, yet they get the best summer weeks and always leave a mess and break stuff. You just know that would be the case.

This same cynical strain of anti-vacation home post is peppered all over DC Urban Mom, especially the family and real estate forums. Seems like the same persons parrot the same script, no matter if it’s co-owned by a family or not. I suspect it is lower means malcontents and investor class trying to make vacation home ownership sound terrifying. Both love highlighting how great it is to have zero responsibilities or drama. And taxes and repairs you can write off are a spun as a monumental burden. Owning nothing and pissing away family wealth on rent and hotels is so blissful. No actually, past a certain age it’s embarrassing and nobody is impressed by your faux coy brag photo drops on Facebook of your stay in another nice place you don’t own. And no, nobody thinks a serial renter has a big pot of money in bank. Because you don’t — or you’d own a vacation home.

Best satire on the net.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had the siblings decided to keep the house, OP would be here complaining about how difficult the brother and sister are. The narrative would be that she pays the lion's share of the bills, yet they get the best summer weeks and always leave a mess and break stuff. You just know that would be the case.

This same cynical strain of anti-vacation home post is peppered all over DC Urban Mom, especially the family and real estate forums. Seems like the same persons parrot the same script, no matter if it’s co-owned by a family or not. I suspect it is lower means malcontents and investor class trying to make vacation home ownership sound terrifying. Both love highlighting how great it is to have zero responsibilities or drama. And taxes and repairs you can write off are a spun as a monumental burden. Owning nothing and pissing away family wealth on rent and hotels is so blissful. No actually, past a certain age it’s embarrassing and nobody is impressed by your faux coy brag photo drops on Facebook of your stay in another nice place you don’t own. And no, nobody thinks a serial renter has a big pot of money in bank. Because you don’t — or you’d own a vacation home.

Your mistake is that you’re confounding “owning real estate” versus “owning shared real estate.” I haven’t seen anyone post something negative about the former. But, anyone sophisticated in the real estate world (not you, clearly) is wary of the latter. Especially when it involves family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP.

Just to be clear -- is someone really implying that you have to own a beach house to create good memories and a happy childhood for your children? Really, or am I misreading how the dichotomy is set up?

I'm not sure that people without beach houses are confined to mortgagor children. That's ... an odd take.

I assume people who did not grow up with access to family vacation homes don’t really understand, so it’s easy to be dismissive about the experiences, memories and traditions. A rental is not the same thing, not even close. And also, if you’re miserable and hate where you’re from or are estranged from family, it’s even easier to be dismissive about all of this.

Beach houses, and family businesses, tend to work out well when one person (or a married couple) own them and have the ultimate say on how they’re run/used.

Once ownership passes on to a group of siblings, that’s when the problems typically start. I expect that when my FIL dies, one of the four siblings in my wife’s family will force a sale of the Delaware beach house.

Yep. Similar sibling conflicts happen when it comes to looking after elderly parents, how they should be looked after, which sibling does what for the parent(s) and how often. Not to mention inheritance issues in general, even when there is no beach house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't ask for sibling advice here. DCUM is terrible with siblings conflicts.

I must have missed the part where OP was asking for advice on how to repair relations with her siblings. I only read the part where she is still pissed that they wouldn't bankroll her fantasies of owning a joint beach house.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those low class Bush and Kennedy families are so dumb for keeping oceanfront land in the family for generations. Don’t they know you can rent at a variety of places on Airbnb and stay in hotels?

For most of us, it’s at least a century too late to join the Patrician class and pick up waterfront property for a relative pittance. And, I guaranty those properties are owned by a family trust, with clearly defined control rules in the trust document.

I wonder when the last time an oceanfront Kennedy was carping about a family member breaking their boogie board?

I swear, there is a strain on Dcum that lives for the pretentious swagger without the actual money to back it up and, you know, but what they want for themselves.

All hat, no cattle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My inlaws have a beach house in the Rehoboth, OC area. My husband and I have already agreed, when the time comes, we are not going to split it with our BIL and his wife as we travel to too many other places. The taxes alone aren't worth it for the 2 times a year we go.

Is this fabricated? Because you’re trying to come across as smug and well traveled but you’re bragging about putting something very stupid on record with your in-laws. Congrats on a permitting your in-laws to give your BIL and wife 100% of the beach house instead of 50% — which won’t impact the rest of the estate, of course.

I think they mean they won't buy it together with them when the ILs decide to sell. At least that's how I read it. Not taking half in an estate would be dumb.

The owners are going to sign 100% ownership of that beach house over to the son who uses it because the smug “well traveled” daughter in law ran her mouth. She thought she sounded so smart and sophisticated but she actually played herself and her husband out of a very valuable share of property.

Yes, the parents undoubtedly are monitoring DCUM for anonymous posts in order to determine how to divide their assets.

Tell me, is this sort of stupidity catching, or were you born with it?

“My husband and I agreed” = transparent posture obviously evident to the entire family.

“We travel to too many other places” = decades of smug ‘we are better, more broadminded, and more cosmopolitan than you’ actions.

I would bet anything that beach house is signed over to the brother who uses it and it is NOT deducted from his share of the estate the siblings receive. Nitwit daughter in law came on DCUM to boast about fumbling a six if not seven bag of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had the siblings decided to keep the house, OP would be here complaining about how difficult the brother and sister are. The narrative would be that she pays the lion's share of the bills, yet they get the best summer weeks and always leave a mess and break stuff. You just know that would be the case.

This same cynical strain of anti-vacation home post is peppered all over DC Urban Mom, especially the family and real estate forums. Seems like the same persons parrot the same script, no matter if it’s co-owned by a family or not. I suspect it is lower means malcontents and investor class trying to make vacation home ownership sound terrifying. Both love highlighting how great it is to have zero responsibilities or drama. And taxes and repairs you can write off are a spun as a monumental burden. Owning nothing and pissing away family wealth on rent and hotels is so blissful. No actually, past a certain age it’s embarrassing and nobody is impressed by your faux coy brag photo drops on Facebook of your stay in another nice place you don’t own. And no, nobody thinks a serial renter has a big pot of money in bank. Because you don’t — or you’d own a vacation home.

There is a huge difference between owning a vacation home and owning a vacation home with other people. Owning real estate can be a great way to build wealth; having your wealth tied up in property that needs to be jointly managed can be more of a headache than it's worth.

You sound oddly angry/jealous of people who prefer to vacation in different places every summer versus settling down in one specific location. Why do you care so much whether people invest in second homes or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had the siblings decided to keep the house, OP would be here complaining about how difficult the brother and sister are. The narrative would be that she pays the lion's share of the bills, yet they get the best summer weeks and always leave a mess and break stuff. You just know that would be the case.

This same cynical strain of anti-vacation home post is peppered all over DC Urban Mom, especially the family and real estate forums. Seems like the same persons parrot the same script, no matter if it’s co-owned by a family or not. I suspect it is lower means malcontents and investor class trying to make vacation home ownership sound terrifying. Both love highlighting how great it is to have zero responsibilities or drama. And taxes and repairs you can write off are a spun as a monumental burden. Owning nothing and pissing away family wealth on rent and hotels is so blissful. No actually, past a certain age it’s embarrassing and nobody is impressed by your faux coy brag photo drops on Facebook of your stay in another nice place you don’t own. And no, nobody thinks a serial renter has a big pot of money in bank. Because you don’t — or you’d own a vacation home.

How do you explain all those siblings that are noping the hell out on these supposed deals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP.

Just to be clear -- is someone really implying that you have to own a beach house to create good memories and a happy childhood for your children? Really, or am I misreading how the dichotomy is set up?

I'm not sure that people without beach houses are confined to mortgagor children. That's ... an odd take.

I assume people who did not grow up with access to family vacation homes don’t really understand, so it’s easy to be dismissive about the experiences, memories and traditions. A rental is not the same thing, not even close. And also, if you’re miserable and hate where you’re from or are estranged from family, it’s even easier to be dismissive about all of this.

Beach houses, and family businesses, tend to work out well when one person (or a married couple) own them and have the ultimate say on how they’re run/used.

Once ownership passes on to a group of siblings, that’s when the problems typically start. I expect that when my FIL dies, one of the four siblings in my wife’s family will force a sale of the Delaware beach house.

Yep. Similar sibling conflicts happen when it comes to looking after elderly parents, how they should be looked after, which sibling does what for the parent(s) and how often. Not to mention inheritance issues in general, even when there is no beach house

Original post details the dad and uncle co-owned the home (likely inherited from their parents), “no drama,” house was full of cousins all summer. Wow, such conflict. Sell and do your own thing, says Beltway loners estranged from their flyover state families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP.

Just to be clear -- is someone really implying that you have to own a beach house to create good memories and a happy childhood for your children? Really, or am I misreading how the dichotomy is set up?

I'm not sure that people without beach houses are confined to mortgagor children. That's ... an odd take.

I assume people who did not grow up with access to family vacation homes don’t really understand, so it’s easy to be dismissive about the experiences, memories and traditions. A rental is not the same thing, not even close. And also, if you’re miserable and hate where you’re from or are estranged from family, it’s even easier to be dismissive about all of this.

Beach houses, and family businesses, tend to work out well when one person (or a married couple) own them and have the ultimate say on how they’re run/used.

Once ownership passes on to a group of siblings, that’s when the problems typically start. I expect that when my FIL dies, one of the four siblings in my wife’s family will force a sale of the Delaware beach house.

Yep. Similar sibling conflicts happen when it comes to looking after elderly parents, how they should be looked after, which sibling does what for the parent(s) and how often. Not to mention inheritance issues in general, even when there is no beach house

Original post details the dad and uncle co-owned the home (likely inherited from their parents), “no drama,” house was full of cousins all summer. Wow, such conflict. Sell and do your own thing, says Beltway loners estranged from their flyover state families.

But it wasn't no-drama, despite what the OP imagines. Her uncle forced the sale that kicked her dad out and set the price for his share too high for 2/3 of the siblings. It's unfortunate, but a common situation when people get older and the next generation didn't better themselves financially. The only drama now is OP, who should have used her share of the inheritance to buy her own beach house.

[Anonymous]

OP, you had a choice to try to find the money to buy them out or sell. You did not buy them out, and not everyone wants a beach house they have to split with multiple other families.

It is sad they didn't wait until after your dad died to sell, or place the house in trust and sell after he passed away, but your dad could have done that before his health deteriorated, if it was important to him.

Please find some way to move on. My sibling also screwed me out of a number of things after our parents death while they were in a hurry to settle things ASAP. Am I still a little angry? Yes. Do I want those things back or get sad or angry about them all the time? No.

[Anonymous]

Only on DCUM does co-owning a family beach house spark World War III. It is far classier to be pikers all summer at some community pool and stalk discount travel websites for months on end to afford that annual family trip.